By my calculations, that works out to $92K per job. The government is spending $92K to give someone a temporary job. Sometimes I'm surprised we're not 26T in debt, rather than just $14T.
That calculation is about right if you are just talking about the federal stimulus dollars. I just read another article that says that the stimulus money covers
only 10% of the total cost of the project. So, between federal and state money, that comes out to nearly $1 million per job. And, believe me, considering North Carolina's budget problems, some of that "state money" could easily become federal bailout money in the near future.
Raleigh-Durham had been planning a light rail system for almost a decade - a project that was at the center of a massive debate in the city. The project died in 2004 because the federal government denied funding. Why did the federal government deny funding, you ask? Because it was just too wasteful for them. Think about that.
I guess this is Plan B, and by some measures it's even more ridiculous. What does it matter if you're saving 13 minutes off the train travel time between Raleigh and Charlotte when you can save 45 minutes by driving? And that doesn't take into account the necessity of train travelers finding other forms of transportation to get to their final destination - neither Raleigh nor Charlotte are what you would call "walkable" cities.
The advocates of the plan are projecting 2 million passengers a year. That's something, considering the fact that maybe 100,000 passengers per year use the existing Raleigh-Charlotte line. 2 million, by the way, also happens to be greater than the combined populations of Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. Maybe I don't speak for most people, but in my 15 years living in Raleigh, I would say I traveled to Charlotte maybe 5 times - I just never had any reason to go. Other than people going to sporting events or college students going home for the weekend, I don't really know anyone who takes regular trips between the two metro areas.
Now I live in Houston, which has a $40 million per mile light rail system. I both live and work within feasible walking distance of train stops - something that most certainly would not be the case for many Raleigh commuters if a light rail system were put into place there. Like any sensible person, however, I drive to work.
I could go on. The absurd arguments in favor of rail transit in Raleigh have driven me crazy for over a decade now. I'll just leave you with one anecdote and a classic show tune. During the debate over the light-rail system, the News & Observer ran a series of specials on the issue. They had profiles and quotes by a number of locals and their position on the project. Needless to say, most of the individuals interviewed were in favor of it. However, all of those interviewed who were in favor of it said they would either not ride the train or would take it "once a month or so to go to the museum". Not one said they would use it for regular commuting. I am still shaking my head about it to this day.
And
here is the classic show tune.
"neither Raleigh nor Charlotte are what you would call "walkable" cities." Therein lies the reason that all rail comparisons between the US and Europe ultimately fail. No one is ever going to take the train between Charlotte in Raleigh or Atlanta or anywhere else in the Southern US precisely because of your point - there are no "walkable cities" in the South - hell, outside of New York and Chicago and perhaps Boston, there really aren't any walkable cities in the US, at all. People can drive to those destinations (across the South) in very reasonable amounts of time (even compared to high-speed rail) and then not be burdened with renting a car upon arrival.
You can see a lot of Europe without ever renting a car, but American cities - primarily because American cities are literally hundreds (and hundreds) of years younger than their European counterparts, just weren't designed similarly. Land is a problem for them, it's still not a problem for us.